Pelagic Bird Photography Thoughts and Advice

I'm thinking of taking one or two boats out of San Diego in late

January 1999 to look at pelagic birds and marine mammals. I've done

this before off both coasts of the USA, and have used my trusty old

Nikkon 400/5.6 manual focus lens for most birds, and a Nikkor 75-300

AF zoom for close birds and whales near the boat.

<p>

Seeing what a difference AF has made in my success rate with landbirds

using a 300/2.8 and an AF 2x converter, I'm trying to decide what

makes more sense for the January trips:

<p>

- use the old MF 400: I've got it already, I know it works, it's

light and compact

<p>

- take the 300/2.8 with a TC14E, for an AF 420/4, and try using

a monopod to deal with the weight: big and heavy for six hours on

a shoulder strap, no way to mount a filter to keep salt spray off

the front glass, it would ruin my day to drop it into the Pacific

<p>

- find a cheap 400/5.6 AF lens (Tokina, Sigma, Tamron?) to rent

for the trip: will the AF operate fast enough with an N90s body,

will the optical quality be good enough (hand held shots of distant

moving birds taken from a boat are already marginal)

<p>

So, any advice from others who do this sort of thing?

If I understand you correctly you are going to shoot from a boat,

Right? What lens you can use and still obtain sharp images depends not

only on the usual stuff but also on how big the waves are and how big

is the boat. I'm shooting birds from my Zodiac inflatable boat and

even on a calm sea I can't shoot with anything longer than a 300mm

lens and get sharp images on a consistent basis. I have tried to use

my 300/2.8 with a 1,4X converter, but the pictures are usually fuzzy

due to movement of the boat during exposure. Of course you can always

compensate with faster film, but then I don't get the qualiy and

sharpness I want.

It would seem that the Canon IS lenses are made for this application.

You might consider renting both a Canon EOS body and lens, if you can

find a place to rent from. Either the 300/4 IS + 1.4x or new

100-400/4.5-5.6 IS would seem to be good candidates. The 75-300 IS

is a possible too, if 300/5.6 is long and fast enough.

<p>

I realize this isn't too helpful for a Nikon user, but it's the

best I can do! A gyro stabilizer is pretty heavy and probably

as difficult to find on a rental basis as the Canon IS lenses are!

<p>

Moose Peterson likes the Tokina 400/5.6 AF for flying birds with

his Nikon outfit. I'm not sure many places rent such lenses though.

Not expensive enough!

Richard, I agree with Paal's experiance with shooting from small

boats, although on occasions when the water is "like glass" in the

protected inside waters of SE Alaska I can manage tack sharp images

with my Leitz 560/6.8 Telyt-R w/gripstock shooting from my Zodiac MK

III. But in the real ocean, with real ocean waves, a 300/2.8 is

really the only thing that works - if its really sunny your extra

shutterspeed will be used up by a polarizer - but do bring the TC

with you, of couse. I wouldn't worry too much about dropping the lens

overboard (you won't) or ruining it with salt spray - professional

lenses hold up well.

<p>

If your on a bigger boat, like a 50 footer or something you might

bash the lens against the deckhouse or railing if the seas are high,

or if the boat quickly changes speed or course - about the only thing

I can think of to watchout for. A bigger boat will also make use of

your 1.4x TC productive, seas depending. In anycase I don't see a

need to try to find an inexpensive 400/5.6 to rent - too slow of a

lens, and the physical risks to your 300/2.8 shouldn't be

sufficiantly extreme, in my experiance.

<p>

And of course, Bob's idea of renting a Canon outfit with the IS

lenses is worth a try for a day or two. The IS system really does

work, and I'd think there'd be a proshop somewhere in San Diego.

Hans

Moose Peterson uses his 400mm Tokina on an F5, which probably

accounts for his great AF stories...

<p>

In a weak moment, I ordered one full of wishful thinking that it

would focus quickly on the N90s. It isn't horrible, but it certainly

isn't quick. It's in the same league of autofocus speed and tracking

capability as the 80-200mm f2.8D or 300mf4 on the N90s, that is, just

okay.

Richard,

I use to do research on the Bering Sea near the Pribilof Islands. As

one of the Ornithologists on board, I was frequently interested in

photographing the pelagic bird life. As people have already indicated,

if you are on a large boat, a tripod will serve you well. If you are

on a small boat, I suggest that you use a lens that you are

comfortable holding. A 300 f4.0, while slow, is much easier to hold

especially if you mount it to a gun stock that you can use to brace

the camera + lens against your body.

On a compositional note, I recall that many of my older photographs

would have been better if I was thinking about horizon lines.

Photographing birds in the water is a challenge since the boat is in

constant motion. The problem is that it is very difficult to maintain

a horizontal horizon. One technique that I often used was to eliminate

the horizon by filling the frame with water and birds alone.

Just a quick question: What are you looking to photograph? I use to

participate in research cruises for the Scripps Institute. I remember

doing a long series of transects through the pacific. During the few

cruises that I worked, I saw a number of shearwaters, albatross,

petrels, and misc. gull species. Also, out there in the middle of "no-

where" were common dolphins, grey whales, & pilot whales.

Have fun... I miss those great trips now that I am land-locked in

Minnesota.

regards

bruce

If a fast 2.8 lens is not practical, why not use a slower lens with

faster film? Despite the admonitions of the photographic "experts"

not everybody needs or uses ISO 100 chrome films. Try out some Kodak

Gold or Fuji Superia at 400. You can easily make a quality 8x12 from

these films.

Thanks to all who have commented so far. I should havbe said a

bit more about the specifics of the boats, birds, and my past

experience. I see now that there may be some confusion based on

personal experience or assumptions.

<p>

The trips I'm considering are part of the 1999 San Diego Bay Bird

Festival (http://www.flite-tours.com/program.htm) scheduled for

January 29-31. The Sat trip is 7:00 am to 10:00 am and stays close

to La Jolla (3 miles); the Sun trip is 7:00-1:00 and goes to the

Coronado Islands (12 miles). Seeing birds is the primary objective,

with good chances to see gray whales as well.

<p>

I've been on many similar trips out of NJ, Seattle WA, Monterey CA,

and San Diego before, and have taken many bird photos on all of them.

The boats used are usually large (at least 60 feet, sometimes 90

feet). Photography is done from the outside decks anywhere from a

couple feet to 15 feet above the water surface. There are usually

lots of birders hugging the rails for viewing birds, and lots of

movement as birders rush about to see things others call out. This

is not a place for tripods, obviously. All shooting is done hand held,

with little time for thought or other niceties.

<p>

Sea conditions are whatever the weather brings that day. I've been

out on glass clam water, where ISO 100 film can be used, and on the

so-called "trip from Hell" off NJ in December one year where the

storm we went through ripped the rear door off the main cabin, and

almost everyone on board was physically green. I took few photos

on that trip.

<p>

My favorite film for this in the past was Kodachrome 200: fast enough

for my 400/5.6, plenty sharp, with natural color for the water. I was

thinking of trying Sensia 100 or E200 with a one stop push this time.

<p>

The photographic objective on trips like this is primarily

documentation rather than art, so few people worry about fine

grain images and subtle compositions. If the photo shows the bird

well enough to confirm an identification as to species, it is

regarded as a good photo. But there are lots of excellent photos

taken under these conditions, and I've got some of flying Northern

Gannets and Black-legged Kittiwakes that are quite nice. The tough

subjects are the various shearwaters, storm-petrels, and alcids.

<p>

Bob is correct that the Canon Image Stabilization lenses are ideal

for this type of shooting. I think I will look into renting an IS

lens and a Canon body. There is a decent camera shop in San Diego

(George's?) that has the Nikon 300/2.8 and 600/4 AF-S lenses for

rent I could try. But I'd feel more comfortable using the Nikon

bodies I know well.

Richard, where I live the local chapter of the Audubon Society

charters a 90' catamaran in May for a swing through the wildlife rich

islands and bays around Juneau to see what can be seen - same type of

thing your talking about, and I go every year. I have a nice, but not

THAT nice, slide of a Yellow-billed Loon. I'd not seen a Yellow-

billed Loon before or since. This type of trip isn't conducive to

serious photographic pursuits, but I enjoy them since I'm into

birding. For serious picture taking I'm out in my Zodiac, friends or

chartered larger boat and can control where and when the boat goes.

<p>

My strategy for the birdwatching catamaran type trips is not to move

around much - either I'll just hangout on the bridge wing, bow or

stern (depending on where the sun is, and where on the boat is out of

the traffic flow), and watch for things to shoot, relax and have a

nice time. Theres mostly always someone else whos not a mood to run

from rail to rail as birds are called out, which is nice because not

much can be seen while looking through a viewfinder with a long

telephoto attached - an extra pair of birdwatching eyes is nice. I

agree with your experiance; excellent photos are very possible in

this situation, and they're usually of things the naturalist on the

microphone completely missed.

<p>

I shot a brick and half if E200 + 1 stop last summer, I think the

stuff works great - I still have 2 year old K200 in my freezer. Great

stuff this modern film. Hans

Here is just my 2 cents. If a tripod is out of the question, how

about using a monopod (or even just using your tripod with just one

leg extended, so it acts as a monopod) From what I understand, alot

of sports photographers use monopods with the bigger lenses (400/2.8.)

Just a thought.

Many people with far more experience than I have already posted on

this topic.

That said, I have frequently gone on whale watches in the Bay of

Fundy. A tripod? Out of the question! Even a monopod seems impractical

because of wave motion (and other passengers). I never even took my

300mm F/4.5. My 80-200 F/4.5 was about all the FL I could handle and

get in focus.

I have the Tamron 200-400 and use it on an F90X (N90s). It seems to

focus VERY fast to me . . . at least compared to MF! I have not been

on a whale watch since acquiring it but think it might be quite

successful.